Peter Seibel wrote: > On Jan 22, 2006, at 12:46 PM, Marco Antoniotti wrote: > >> Matthew Astley wrote: >>> I've just stumbled across a mention of >>> http://clrfi.alu.org/ >>> >>> I probably won't look at it until I catch up a bit, but it sounds >>> like >>> a gardening sort of project and I think there is some membership >>> overlap. >>> >>> Is there a relationship? If not, should there be? >> I guess at this point there should really really be. >> >> One of the first thing to do would be to render the main CLRFI >> pages in >> the new wiki format and to review various other sources of proposals >> (e.g. the Cliki "issue" pages). > > If the CLRFI folks want to set up one or more Gardener projects to do > things that would help the CLRFI process become a real thing, they > should. The problem with CLRFI at the moment is it's not clear (to me > anyway) what an outsider can do to help it along. I don't want > Gardener's to sweep in and try and take over the CLRFI process--it's > up to the CLRFI Editors to tell us how we can help out.
The consensus after the last ILC was to have a CLRFI process much more light weight than it was proposed. The ALU wiki was supposed to be the right infrastructure. The people involved, were not quite "editors" per se, they just put some time in. I can set up the project, but I will need help. > > Or maybe the Gardeners can find a way to achieve the goals of the > CLRFI with a different process. For instance, I can imagine a > reasonable extension of the Gardeners' Reports idea that would yield > something like an RFI. > The CLRFI are RFI's (if you mean "request for implementation") :) Cheers -- Marco _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
